Moore or Jones?

[AUDub 11,143]

 

[autigeremt 6,592]

I will be voting Doug Jones. I have never liked Roy Moore and I believe he isn't capable of being a good Senator for the State of Alabama. I'm not saying Jones is a "great" candidate but he's by far the better candidate for the job.

In my opinion.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

18 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Looks to me like they were pretty rigorous. If the Project Veritas self pwn isn't an indicator of that, not much is. 

I would say so too.  I'd also say that tracking down corroborating witnesses that the stories these women told WaPo were at least told to other people back during the time it occurred is a big indicator of that as well. 

To me, PT seems to be taking the "heads I win, tails you lose" approach to this.  If WaPo fell for the ruse by Project Veritas and published the accusations of their secret shopper, it's proof they didn't do their due diligence on Roy Moore's other accusers as well.  If WaPo digs and finds inconsistencies, and in the course of that finds that the person is a plant by this group, then it's somehow proof that they only dig when it can expose a conservative group trying to trick them.  Either outcome magically proves the point he wishes to believe.

[alexava 6,973]

7 hours ago, autigeremt said:

I will be voting Doug Jones. I have never liked Roy Moore and I believe he isn't capable of being a good Senator for the State of Alabama. I'm not saying Jones is a "great" candidate but he's by far the better candidate for the job.

In my opinion.

You are a gentleman and a scholar.... I salute you.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

8 hours ago, autigeremt said:

I will be voting Doug Jones. I have never liked Roy Moore and I believe he isn't capable of being a good Senator for the State of Alabama. I'm not saying Jones is a "great" candidate but he's by far the better candidate for the job.

In my opinion.

Then you don't care if the Dems get control and block a conservative for the next SCOTUS vacancy which has far reaching implications beyond Moore for your younger family?

[AUDub 11,143]

Recent polling shows Moore remains in the lead. Interestingly, the only demographic he leads is 65+.

[homersapien 11,357]

9 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Then you don't care if the Dems get control and block a conservative for the next SCOTUS vacancy which has far reaching implications beyond Moore for your younger family?

What makes you think a conservative judge is going to be better for anyone's family?  Seems to me they are only better for corporations.

[alexava 6,973]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What makes you think a conservative judge is going to be better for anyone's family?  Seems to me they are only better for corporations.

Don’t forget that’s the only way we keep our guns and not get overrun with homersexuals. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

That noted far-left, socialist, liberal rag National Review gives their take on the attempt to trick WaPo into publishing a false allegation:

 

Quote

 

Surprise! It’s Kind of Standard for Sexual-Assault Accusers to Face Scrutiny!

Project Veritas seems to have been caught hiring a woman to falsely accuse Roy Moore of sexual assault to the Washington Post — presumably in order to prove how it’s just so easy to get away with fabricating these stories — only to find that, well, it isn’t.

The woman, who identified herself as Jaime Phillips, approached the Post with a horrifying story: She had a sexual relationship with Moore when she was only 15, and it resulted in a pregnancy that he persuaded her to abort. The assumption, presumably, was that the Post would be so entranced by this politically perfect story that they’d just run with it — without verification — revealing once and for all that all a woman has to do to be believed by the Libturd Snowflake Fake News Post is simply say she was assaulted by a conservative man, and that all of Moore’s accusers were just a bunch of gold-digging fakers out for fortune and fame.

Of course, that’s not what happened. No, what happened was Phillips was easily outed as a fake, through inconsistencies in her story, background details that didn’t check out, and a GoFundMe account that she’d created — under her own actual name — announcing that she was moving to New York because she’d found “work in the conservative media movement to combat the lies and deceit of the liberal MSM.”

I can’t believe I even have to explain this this, but posing as a sexual-assault victim is a despicable thing to do. It hurts actual victims by making the public even less likely to believe their stories, while many are already too afraid to come forward because they’re worried they’ll be written off as liars. I know the president of Project Veritas, James O’Keefe; he’s always been kind to me, and yet I still have to say that I’m absolutely horrified by these actions.

The fact that sexual-assault victims who go public must endure both shame and doubt is not up for debate. Just look at the comments under any tweet or article on the subject. It’s always a lot of “Why did she wait so long?” (It’s not like there’s any humiliation, painful emotions, or concern about jerks like you not believing her!) or “She’s just doing it for the fame!” (Because, you know, if a woman wants to be famous, all she has to do is randomly accuse a powerful man of sexual assault. That’s totally how you get to the red carpet, and not how you get people to be reluctant to work with you because they think you’re a “troublemaker”!) or “Why didn’t she sue?” (Because a 14-year-old from a broken home definitely had the resources to take on a district attorney in a he-said-she-said legal battle!) or even “She was asking for it” (Yes! Blame the victim!).

All too often, the tendency is to doubt the victims — and, perhaps for this reason, the Washington Post was very thorough in the reporting of its original Roy Moore story. As a I previously wrote in a column for National Review, the Washington Post’s reporting about Roy Moore was nothing like that Rolling Stone campus sexual-assault story that turned out to be false. Rolling Stone relied on only one, single unidentifiable source, while the WaPo had four on-the-record victims — and their stories were backed up by more than 30 corroborating sources. The math alone says they’re different, so why do so many people keep assuming that they’re basically the same thing?

If they’re looking at the facts, no one should be surprised that it wasn’t so easy for Project Veritas to feed a false assault allegation to the Washington Post. The number of sources that the reporters interviewed before publishing the story alone should have been enough to know that some faker wouldn’t be able to get through without facing problems. Somehow, though, Donald Trump has managed to turn the phrase “Fake News!” into a wool over too many people’s eyes, making them completely blind to even the most basic of facts. It’s sad but it’s true: We now live in a world where, for too many people, “More than 30 sources” can be countered with simply, “The Washington Post Is Fake News!” and that’s that. Apparently, even James O’Keefe fell for it, and his disgusting attempt at discrediting credible victims wound up becoming even more evidence that the victims should be believed.

The worst part of all of this, though, is that it doesn’t even matter: The fact that Project Veritas’s sting backfired, and wound up being an additional argument for the victims, will be completely lost on anyone who needs to understand it. O’Keefe himself knows this; he actually sent out a fundraising email after the news of his botched sting broke (insisting that “we already got our story”), and I’m sure he’ll get donations from it. For some, the Washington Post is just the enemy, and that’s the end of the story. Its opinion section is liberal, and therefore the newspaper must be defeated at all costs.

The real story, of course, is that the sting demonstrated just how carefully the Washington Post scrutinizes sexual-assault stories before publishing them, but I know that the people intent on defending Roy Moore don’t care much about that. In far too many circles, a devotion to tribalism has become far more important than a devotion to the truth — and when we’re talking about something as gravely serious as victims of childhood sexual abuse, I couldn’t be more sick about it.

— Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review Online.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454123/project-veritas-james-okeefe-roy-moore-sting-backfires

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 hours ago, alexava said:

Don’t forget that’s the only way we keep our guns and not get overrun with homersexuals. 

I love it

[alexava 6,973]

Just a few facts to know ..

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/late-term_abortion_key_to_moor.html

[SaltyTiger 7,777]

Moore will win. Florida resident now and no vote but have never cared for Roy. Be interesting to see the "unfit" campaign coming.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

This is getting crazy.......

http://hopelesslypartisan.com/the-final-piece-in-roy-moores-senate-run/

http://hopelesslypartisan.com/24496-2/

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

42 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

This is getting crazy.......

http://hopelesslypartisan.com/the-final-piece-in-roy-moores-senate-run/

http://hopelesslypartisan.com/24496-2/

I would call the first link out Demming the Dems at their own game.

The last link is right on.

[DKW 86 7,419]

14 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Recent polling shows Moore remains in the lead. Interestingly, the only demographic he leads is 65+.

He leads in over the top religious fundies. I bet his lead is actually from 55-up.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

16 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

He leads in over the top religious fundies. I bet his lead is actually from 55-up.

And Fox News devotees.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

19 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

And Fox News devotees.

Butthurt loser excuse. Carry on.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Butthurt loser excuse. Carry on.

Clearly I struck a nerve of a cultist.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Clearly I struck a nerve of a cultist.

No. You got called out by someone who sees you for who you are. Own it Tex.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

No. You got called out by someone who sees you for who you are. Own it Tex.

Fox News viewers live in one reality, the rest of the world lives in another. Own your cultist clique, 78.

[homersapien 11,357]

From Forbes, no less. 

 

A Rigorous Scientific Look Into The 'Fox News Effect'

In 2012, a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey reported that Fox News viewers were less informed about current events than people who didn't follow the news at all. The survey had asked current events questions like "Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives?" and also asked what source of news people followed. The Fox viewers' current events scores were in the basement. This finding was immediately trumpeted by the liberal media—by Fox, not so much—and has since become known as the Fox News effect. It conjures the image of Fox News as a black hole that sucks facts out of viewers' heads.

Read the rest at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#3177304612ab

[AUFAN78 3,894]

16 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Fox News viewers live in one reality, the rest of the world lives in another. Own your cultist clique, 78.

That was so weak Tex. Makes you appear clueless. But because I'm a nice guy, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 

[TexasTiger 12,828]

9 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

That was so weak Tex. Makes you appear clueless. But because I'm a nice guy, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 

The clueless find the truth "weak."

[AUFAN78 3,894]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The clueless find the truth "weak."

Didn't mean to get your panties all bunched there Tex. Just stating facts. You deal with them as you must. I'll continue laughing regardless. 

[TexasTiger 12,828]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Didn't mean to get your panties all bunched there Tex. Just stating facts. You deal with them as you must. I'll continue laughing regardless. 

And I'll keep laughing about you thinking you deal in facts.